White (non-hispanic) URM?

If diversity is not solely based upon skin color, ethnicity or gender identity, then what merit would a white, non-hispanic male have in claiming URM status? According to LSAC, "We use the term diversity broadly to include all aspects of human differences, including but not limited to socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, geography, disability, and age."http://www.lsac.org/jd/diversity/minorities-in-legal-education.asp

I consider myself to be a socioeconomically disadvantaged caucasian male who is the first family member in generations to graduate high school, let alone college, despite having perservered through poverty, homelessness, domestic abuse, parental drug abuse, and child neglect.

I know where to look in the dictionary to find sympathy, and that is not the premise of my post. What I'm looking for is any words of wisdom from other LSD contributors who may know of someone who had similar experiences and was succesful/unsuccessful in claiming URM status. Thanks.

This is a complicated social issue, and probably more than I should try to bite off here, but here goes:

The reason they track URMs and provide preferrential admissions is for affirmative action purposes.

When Affirmative Action began in the 60s and 70s, the purpose was to reverse historical discrimination. Basically, for instance, black guys might have not gotten a fair shake in the past. So, to try and right a historical wrong, it's only fair to give a few black guys an extra boost to see if we can tilt the scales after so many years of a thumb being on them to exclude black folks.

Now, though, the recent Affirmative Action Supreme Court decisions have absolutely nothing to do with righting a historical wrong. They are about a "critical mass" of people of various skin colors.

Period.

As ridiculous as that sounds, that is the current state of Affirmative Action. The colleges won't define "critical mass", except to say that it is more than one. They know that defining it, at all, would make it illegal since quotas under affirmative action are too blatantly unconstitutional even for the Supreme Court's ruling.

(This is why the U of M undergrad case went against U of M. Because it assigned an actual quantifiable advantage to URMs. The U of M law case went for U of M specifically because the advantage wasn't defined.)

Affirmative Action exists under a standard of strict scrutiny because, on its face, it is absolutely blatantly unconstitutional. Strict Scrutiny, by the way, is how we got other such wonderful unconstitutional things such as internment camps for Japanes Americans in WWII. Basically, Strict Scrutiny is the Supreme Courts way of saying that something is blatantly unconstitutional and should absolutely be illegal, however, the Supreme Court happens to like what happens if we keep breaking the law, so we're going to break the law, but watch very closely as we do it.

So, long ways around saying that "diversity" isn't really the goal, here. Although there is nothing wrong with providing extra admissions or scholarships to people from underpriviledged backgrounds, that's not what keeping track of URMs is about.

URM status is so schools can ignore the constituion and judge people by their skin tone.

In addition to what has been said, the factors you have identified will reflect strongly on your application at any school who actually reviews it. So long as your scores don't put you in an auto-reject pile, this will help you.

Now, you wont be listed as an URM, but you will probably have an advantage over other applicants. If you live in Texas, UT considers those factors and is required to do so by its state legislature. Other state schools may do this for residents.

You background includes the type of diversity that is often lacking in law schools and is sought out. Work hard for your LSAT, and everything else will work out. I would apply to schools that are +3-5 on what you think your LSAT should be.